Vann v. Olson et al
ORDER approving and adopting 101 Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; denying Mr. Vann's 69 motion for summary judgment; granting defendants' 90 motion for summary judgment; dismissi ng Mr. Vann's 1983 claims with prejudice and dismissing his pendent state medical malpractice claims without prejudice; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 07/30/2015. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CLAYTON LAMONT VANN
Case No. 5:14-cv-00118-KGB-JTR
CONNIE HUBBARD, APN
Varner Unit, ADC, et al.
The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. No. 101) and the filed objections (Dkt. No. 102). After
carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case,
the Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby is, approved and
adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects.
The Court writes separately to address plaintiff Clayton Lamont Vann’s objections,
particularly his objections to Judge Ray’s recommendation to dismiss his claim that defendants
did not adequately treat his pain during the relevant time period, from April 3, 2013, to August 6,
2013 (Dkt. No. 102). Mr. Vann asserts that “[t]he Court is looking over the fact that plaintiff
was never prescribe[d] any pain medication by [defendants Connie Hubbard or Dr. Ojiuga Iko]”
(Id. at 1). On June 17, 2013, Dr. Iko examined Mr. Vann for a complaint relating to his hernia
(Dkt. No. 91-2, at 1). Mr. Vann complained of pain at that time (Id. at 2), but it is unclear
whether Dr. Iko then prescribed him pain medication. Mr. Vann admits Dr. Iko did prescribe
him pain medication at some point (Dkt. No. 71, at 1). Regardless, evidence suggests that Mr.
Vann did receive some type of pain medication during the relevant time period (Dkt. Nos. 91, at
5, 102, at 31). Further, as Judge Ray stated, nothing in the medical record suggests that Mr.
Vann complained during the relevant time period of the lack of pain medication to the nurses
during the daily segregation rounds or during visits to the infirmary. On August 6, 2013, when
Mr. Vann did complain according to the medical record, a nurse examined Mr. Vann and
prescribed him Tylenol for three days.
Mr. Vann cites Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 2011). This case is
distinguishable from Gonzalez in that this Court is ruling on the record presented at the summary
judgment stage, not ruling at the motion to dismiss stage like Gonzalez. Further, here defendants
determined that Mr. Vann’s hernia was easily reducible, and there is no record that Mr. Vann’s
hernia had been worsening for two years, as was the case in Gonzalez. Id. at 314. Dr. Iko during
examination in the relevant period found that Mr. Vann was still able to perform his daily
activities, was not in any distress, and was ambulating without any difficulties, though Dr. Iko
advised him to avoid activities increasing intra-abdominal pressure, such as sit-ups and lifting
heavy objects (Dkt. No. 91-1, at 4). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the
conservative treatment prescribed for Mr. Vann by defendant medical providers during the
relevant period had any adverse effects on Mr. Vann’s prognosis or was not consistent with
sound medical practices.
It is therefore ordered that:
Mr. Vann’s motion for summary judgment is denied (Dkt. No. 69).
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 90).
Mr. Vann’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice and his pendent
state medical malpractice claim is dismissed without prejudice.
It is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis
appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.
SO ORDERED this the 30th day of July, 2015.
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?